Tag Archives: governor

Amanpour on One-Sided This Week: ‘Profound Questions About Religious Tolerance and Prejudice in the U.S.’

Posted on August 22, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Not even feigning the pretense of balance, a week after her roundtable hailed President Obama’s initial endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque (GZM), on this Sunday’s This Week host Christiane Amanpour featured an “exclusive” with two GZM proponents as she declared “the controversy has raised profound questions about religious tolerance and prejudice in the United States. And the backlash against Islam has been seen across the country…” Holding up the current Time magazine with its “Is America Islamophobic?” cover, she forwarded the contention: “Is America Islamophobic? Are you concerned about the long-term relationship between American Muslims and the rest of society here?” Amanpour’s guests, to “cut through the heated rhetoric” on the only Sunday interview show with a guest segment on the GZM (Fox News Sunday took it up in its panel time): Daisy Khan, wife of imam behind the project, and Rabbi Joy Levitt, from the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, “who’s an adviser on the project.” Amanpour began by undermining the idea the community center with a prayer room inside is all that close to Ground Zero: “Opponents say that it’s just too close to the site of the 9/11 attacks, though it cannot be seen from there. It took an ABC News producer two minutes and 45 seconds to walk from Ground Zero to the site of the proposed center.” Amanpour posed a series of fairly friendly questions about their reaction to the backlash, what services would be provided by the center, if they had made any “missteps” and if they would take up Governor Paterson on his offer to find another location, before she cued them up to denounce Newt Gingrich:  There’s been a lot of heated rhetoric as we’ve been saying. I want to play you something that the former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, said about the plans to build this center near Ground Zero….Let me ask you directly because he did bring up Nazi imagery there. What do you make of that? She raised the funding , but only to portray Khan as an innocent: “Are you prepared to discuss the issue of foreign funding? Let’s say there was foreign funding, how would you be able to know exactly where that money was coming from?” Amanpour did play a soundbite of Khan’s husband claiming in 2001 that “the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” But after Khan answered he just meant it was “blowback” for “CIA support specifically to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban,” Amanpor dropped the subject so she could move to American prejudice and hate, cuing up Khan: This Time magazine cover is being talked about a lot right now. Basically, “Is America Islamophobic?” Is America Islamophobic? Are you concerned about the long-term relationship between American Muslims and the rest of society here? Khan’s reply likely echoed Amanpour’s unsaid view: “Yes, I think we are deeply concerned because this is like a metastasized anti-Semitism. That’s what we feel right now. It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims.” During the subsequent roundtable, Robert Reich made clear his disgust with the “intolerance” of Americans on this and immigration and Gingrich’s “outrageous” criticism, PBS’s Judy Woodruff, ex of CNN and NBC, lamented (“it was just six days after 9/11 that President George W. Bush went to an Islamic Center…and said we need to remember that the acts that were done to this country do not represent all of Islam”) and her husband, Bloomberg’s Al Hunt, offered his own sophomoric response to the argument the site should be moved: Is it three blocks instead of two blocks? Is it eight blocks? Is it another state, another country? That strikes me as a very sophomoric argument. This whole thing has been demagoged. My ongoing Amanpour Watch: Last week: “ Amanpour’s Panel Hails Obama’s ‘Courage,’ ‘Leadership’ and ‘Great Global Message’ on Mosque ” August 8: “ Amanpour Elevates British Journalist Who Sees ‘Culture of Hate’ in U.S., Time to Divide Up Our ‘Pie ’” August 1, reviewing Amanpour’s debut: “ Amanpour Slums to Take on U.S. Politics, Flummoxed Pelosi’s Victories Aren’t Better Appreciated ” All of Amanpour’s questions and prompts during the segment with Khan and Levitt, on the August 22 This Week: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: We turn now over the debate of the proposed Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero. Opponents say that it’s just too close to the site of the 9/11 attacks, though it cannot be seen from there. It took an ABC News producer two minutes and 45 seconds to walk from Ground Zero to the site of the proposed center. But the controversy has raised profound questions about religious tolerance and prejudice in the United States. And the backlash against Islam has been seen across the country with mosques facing protests in California, Wisconsin and Tennessee. And some intelligence experts now say that the backlash could also bolster extremists abroad who wish to portray the United States as anti-Islam. And so this morning, we cut through the heated rhetoric and hear directly from one of the leading organizers behind the center, Daisy Khan, wife of imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and also Rabbi Joy Levitt, Executive Director of the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, who’s an adviser on the project. Thank you both very much for joining me on This Week. > Can I ask you first, Daisy, what has been your reaction – you haven’t spoken publicly – what has been your reaction – to the last several weeks of this? > Well you say you started to meet them, did you not meet with families as you began to propose this Islamic center? > Rabbi Joy Levitt, how did it come about that the two of you were working together on this? > [To Khan] What was is mean to be, the Islamic center? Is it a mosque with a dome and minaret, some loud calls to prayer five times a day? Or what is it? > And what about it will be the community center? > Let me ask you both now, because obviously it has taken off on a whole different dimension over the last several weeks. And there’s a huge amount of anxiety amongst many in the United States about the sensitivity of putting it where it is, particularly amongst some of the 9/11 families. So I want to play for you something that the Governor of New York said, in fact on CNN a week ago about the potential of a compromise. Let’s listen to what he says. [DAVID PATERSON: If people put their heads together, maybe we can find a site that’s away from the site now, but still serves the area that would be a noble gesture to those who live in the area who suffered after the attack on this country and at the same time, it would probably in many ways, change a lot of people’s minds about Islam.] So, Daisy, are you prepared — do you have any plans to meet with him? Does imam Feisal? Do you plan to try to seek a compromise and move it? > Do you have a plan to specifically meet with the Governor who’s offered state land for this? And do you think you’ll decide to move it? > So is moving on the table still? [KHAN: We, right now, it’s not, until we consult with all our stake holders.] > Can I ask you, Rabbi Levitt, were there missteps at the beginning, in terms of, let’s some people have suggested there should have been a town hall meeting-style, more outreach, more sophisticated public relations. Not talking just to the people who agreed with you but the people that might have the kind of issues that are being shown right how to. Should there have been a different way of approaching this? > Reaching out to people, should there have been a more organized debate in the community, in the wider area to talk about how this was going to be seen? [LEVITT: …this whole controversy has unleashed is a tremendous amount of misinformation, lack of knowledge about Islam that we need to address.] > Let me take a few of those, sort of, in order. There’s been a lot of heated rhetoric as we’ve been saying. I want to play you something that the former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, said about the plans to build this center near Ground Zero. [GINGRICH, ON FNC, AUGUST 16: Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.] [To Levitt] Let me ask you directly because he did bring up Nazi imagery there. What do you make of that? > Do you have the plans for it, do you have the architect, do you have the funding? Is it something that could happen anytime? Or is it still a long time off? > How much money has been raised? And, are you prepared to discuss the issue of foreign funding? Let’s say there was foreign funding, how would you be able to know exactly where that money was coming from? What other projects elsewhere they may have given money to? > Let me ask you, because there have been also a lot of questions raised about your husband’s political ideas and political views, specifically because of something that he said on 60 Minutes shortly after 9/11. Let me play that. [FEISAL, ON 60 MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 30, 2001: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.] What do you think he meant by that? [KHAN: It was a longer interview. And in the longer interview, he talked about CIA support specifically to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.] > You mean back, against the Soviet Union? [KHAN: And how this was, in CIA terms, a blowback of that. That’s what he meant.] > You’ve talked about the state of Islam in the United States. I mean, look, this Time magazine cover is being talked about a lot right now. Basically, “Is America Islamophobic?” Is America Islamophobic? Are you concerned about the long-term relationship between American Muslims and the rest of society here? [KHAN: Yes, I think we are deeply concerned because this is like a metastasized anti-Semitism. That’s what we feel right now. It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims…] > [To Levitt] Do you agree with what she just said and how she described it? > The last word. Do you think it will go ahead?

Read the original post:
Amanpour on One-Sided This Week: ‘Profound Questions About Religious Tolerance and Prejudice in the U.S.’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lauer to Giuliani: Some Say Mosque Protestors Were Ones That Added ‘Vitriol’ to the Debate

Posted on August 19, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

NBC’s Matt Lauer invited on Rudy Giuliani to discuss the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque with the former New York City mayor diplomatically addressing most of the religious freedom concerns while still recommending that the site be moved, but Lauer furthered the notion that the imam fronting the project was not at fault for the “vitriol” in the debate, as he questioned the former mayor: “Some would say he didn’t create the vicious, angry battle. That it’s the people who decided to weigh in on it who add, added the vitriol to the battle.” To which Giuliani responded that “they’re wrong…if you are a healer, you do not go forward with this project.” The following is the full interview with Giuliani as it was aired on the August 19 Today show: MATT LAUER: Now the debate raging over those plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero. The current mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has been one of the most vocal proponents of that mosque. But former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has a different opinion. Mr. Mayor, good morning. It’s nice to see you. RUDY GIULIANI: Good morning. LAUER: What’s your problem with it? I mean most people say, look, it’s, it’s legal, it’s within the Constitution. We protect religious freedom in this country. Why don’t you think it should be built there? GIULIANI: I agree with all that. And beyond that it’s an as of right project, as far as I can tell under New York law. They never even had to go through all those reviews they went through. The question here is a question of sensitivity, people’s feelings. And, are you really what you pretend to be? As I understand this, this Cordoba House, the idea of it is to healing. To show that Muslims care about the same things as Christians and Jews do. That we’re one people. That we should be one. Well, if you’re going to, if you’re going to so horribly offend the people that were most directly offended by this, most directly affected by this, the families of the September 11 victims — who I happen to know and have gotten to know, you know, really well — then how are you healing? I mean all this is doing is creating more division, more anger, more hatred, and I mean, there are, there are- LAUER: Are you worried about the imam behind this project? In terms of his politics, his religious beliefs, do you find him to be anything but the moderate that he’s described as by the current administration, and by the way, the Bush administration before that? GIULIANI: I’m confused by the imam. I see all the things that you’re saying. But I also see a man who said that America was an accessory to September 11. That, those are the very words that required me to give $10 million back to an Arab chic or prince. He gave us $10 million for the 9/11 fund. LAUER: Let me just clarify so people understand what you’re saying. Shortly after 9/11 on 60 minutes he said, quote, “I wouldn’t say the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened on 9/11, because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.” GIULIANI: Well, that, that’s exactly what the, what the Arab prince said when he gave me $10 million. That America was an accessory to September 11 because of its foreign policy. America was not an accessory to September 11. All you gotta do is read about jihad. And the second thing, the second thing he said was, he refused to condemn Hamas, with whom he is alleged to have had some ties, as a terrorist group. It’s recognized by everyone as a terrorist group. And he said America should apologize. So, okay, that’s one part of him. The other part of him is he has had a history of appearing to be a healer, appearing to be someone that wants to talk about a moderate Islam. Appearing- LAUER: Yeah he’s made appearances with Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes. GIULIANI: -appearing, appearing to recognize there are two ways you can interpret the Koran. The, the better way, which is the peaceful way, or the warrior way, which is the way in which you get into trouble with jihad. But those quotes trouble me. But here’s what troubled me more. If he’s truly about healing, he will not go forward with this project, because this project is not healing. LAUER: Let, let me- GIULIANI: This project is divisive. This project is creating tremendous pain to people who have already paid the ultimate sacrifice. LAUER: There are a lot of, a lot of issues are divisive, and yet they have to be, tough choices have to be made. GIULIANI: But Matt- LAUER: Let me just play you- GIULIANI: But, but, but Matt, Matt. But Matt, there, there, that’s true. A lot of issues are divisive but if you want to claim to be the healer, then you’re not on the side of the person who is pushing those divisive issues. LAUER: Let me just play you something you said on, on our program, Meet the Press back on December 22nd of 2002. So about 14 months after 9/11. GIULIANI: Right. LAUER: Take a look. (Begin clip) GIULIANI: If you think about the, the attacks on September 11, I think everyone would acknowledge that part of the core of that attack was the fact that we have freedom of religion in America. That, that it’s part of why America was founded. It’s part of what we’re all about. It’s one of the most prominent things about us. That you can be a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Muslim, or no religion at all, and no one’s going to interfere with you. (End clip) LAUER: “And no one’s going to interfere with you.” By, by, by saying that these people shouldn’t build their mosque where they plan to build it, isn’t that interfering with them? GIULIANI: Well, of course not. First of all, they have freedom of religion. They can build it. They have every right to build it. The question is, should they build it? In, are they displaying the sensitivity they claim by building it? For example, the Pope asked the nuns to take a convent back from right in front of, I forgot if it was Auschwitz or one of the- LAUER: Auschwitz, it was Auschwitz. GIULIANI: -one of the concentration camps. They had a perfect right to be there. They had their freedom of religion there. The nuns were sensitive enough to the concerns of Jews that they pulled it back. Now here’s a man who is selling sensitivity. He’s got $180,000 in the bank, he wants to raise $100 million. Ask me how he’s going to do it, I don’t know. You don’t do it by creating this kind of vicious, sort of angry battle that’s going on. The people who are speaking about it- LAUER: Well some, some would say he didn’t create the vicious, angry battle. That it’s the people who decided to weigh in on it who add, added the vitriol to the battle. GIULIANI: And they’re wrong, and they’re all wrong. I was the first person on September 11 to step forward in the heat of battle, that afternoon, my third press conference and say, no group blame. Do not blame Arabs. We have to, we have to understand this is a small group, and we have to focus on them. But, the reality is, that right now, if you are a healer, you do not go forward with this project. LAUER: A couple of real quick things before- GIULIANI: If you’re a warrior, you do, but not a healer. LAUER: Before I let you go, a couple of quick things. Do you think union workers in this city- GIULIANI: I don’t know. LAUER: -plumbers, electricians, carpenters, will build on that site? GIULIANI: I told you, I told you before I returned to New York last night on an airplane, and I was walking and there were a couple of construction workers there and they told me, in their typical New York accent. “We ain’t working on that project. Let ’em see if they can go find somebody to work on that project.” My answer is, I know New York well enough, you’re going to probably find somebody to work on it. I question whether they can raise the money. Every indication from the attorney general’s reports of their charities are they have about $180,000. $100 million project. And then where is the money coming from? LAUER: In your gut do you think if we sit down a year from right now this project will be under construction at this site- GIULIANI: No. LAUER: -or a different site? GIULIANI: No. I think Governor Paterson had the best approach here. Nice compromise, find another place, have a beautiful mosque there. Don’t have it there. Don’t offend easily 80, 90 percent of the families are seriously offended. I know some people that are crying over this who have lost, who have lost loved ones. You, you or I might not even agree. We, we might say, “Okay, put the mosque there. What’s the, you know?” But maybe we haven’t lost that, that son, that father, person who if you’re watching their child today and you still remember every day that person is gone. It was an attack in the name of Islam. It was a perverted type of Islam. But a kind of prevalent view that goes on in a lot of parts of the world. So we gotta be sensitive to everybody here. LAUER: Rudy Giuliani, good to have you here. GIULIANI: Thank you, good to see you Matt. LAUER: Good to see you.

Visit link:
Lauer to Giuliani: Some Say Mosque Protestors Were Ones That Added ‘Vitriol’ to the Debate

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , ,

Ariz. Sheriff to Obama: Give Me Half Hour, I’ll Show You How to Secure Border

Posted on August 18, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Ariz., is issuing an invitation to President Barack Obama: If the president will come and spend a half hour with Babeu in Arizona, the sheriff says, he will convince the president he can succeed in securing the border and thus make himself into a hero who transcends partisan politics.   Babeu’s southern Arizona county, while not contiguous with the border, has been designated by the Justice Department as part of a High Intensity Drug Trafficking region that is a major route for drug and alien smugglers bringing narcotics and illegal aliens into the United States from Mexico. Babeu has joined with Sheriff Larry Dever of neighboring Cochise County, Ariz.-which does sit on the border-as well as with Arizona’s two senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, in endorsing a ten-point plan for securing the border.     Noting that President Obama has visited Afghanistan to assess the security situation there, CNSNews.com asked Babeu in a videotaped interview whether he would like the president visit with him in Arizona so he can have the opportunity to persuade the president that his plan to secure the border will work. “If the president gave me a half hour, I am confident that I could convince him and to show him the way that he can personally secure the border, and he would be the hero of everybody that truly transcends bipartisan politics and secures that border,” said Babeu. “I believe that if a leader truly wanted to do that we have the means and the resources necessary to secure our border and to protect America once and for all, and then we can get to the point in the future, only after the border is secure, that there is some type of discussion about what do we do with the approximate 13 million people who are here illegally.”     The  ten-point border security plan  backed by Sheriffs Babeu and Dever and Senators McCain and Kyl includes provisions to complete 700 miles of double- and triple-layered border fending, significantly increase the number of drone surveillance aircraft patrolling the border, and deploy 3,000 National Guardsmen to the Arizona section of the Mexico border alone until the governor of Arizona in consultation with local law enforcement officials certifies that the border is secure. Crossposted at NB sister site CNSNews.com  

Follow this link:
Ariz. Sheriff to Obama: Give Me Half Hour, I’ll Show You How to Secure Border

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

N.J. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear gay marriage case raises question of Christie’s influence | NJ.com

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

http://www.queerty.com/did-some-of-new-jerseys-supreme-court-justices-refuse-gay… The New Jersey Supreme Court doesn't give interviews, so no one can ask whether the tribunal balked on the gay marriage issue because it was afraid of the reaction of Gov. Chris Christie. “There won't be any comment,” says Winnie Comfort, a spokeswoman for the court. “Of course, people are free to speculate. There is nothing we can do about that.” Comfort made the comments in response to remarks by legislators who raised the issue of whether the court — or, at least, three members — might have been afraid to touch the gay marriage case because Christie can remove them by appointing other justices. The way he did to Justice John Wallace, the court's only African-American. Both state Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) and Assemblyman John D. McKeon (D-Essex) told The Star-Ledger's Matt Friedman the decision raised the question of whether Wallace's ouster led three non-permanent court members to duck the issue. Those members — Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Roberto Rivera-Soto and Helen Hoens — voted against a motion to have the court immediately revisit its earlier decision in the Lewis vs. Harris case that, in 2006 ruled the Legislature must provide marriage-like rights to same-sex couples. The court then left the details up to lawmakers and they decided to create “civil unions” rather than extend marriages to gays and lesbians. The three judges who don't have to worry about reappointment — Justices Virginia Long, Jaynee LaVecchia, and Barry Albin dissented from the order. They wanted arguments on the motion to go forward. Coincidence? “I think the three justices who voted against the motion looked over their shoulders and saw Chris Christie,” says Frank Askin, a Rutgers Law School professor and constitutional scholar in Newark. “There is no question in my mind that fear of what the Governor would do played a part in that decision.” Michael Drewniak, Christie's spokesman, declined to answer questions about the decision. The state court action contrasts with the robust ruling handed down by federal Judge Vaughn Walker who overturned a California plebiscite — Proposition 8 — banning gay marriages. Forget worrying about a governor, Walker rejected the will of the state's voters because, he ruled, Proposition 8 “violates the due process and equal protection rights” of gays seeking to marry. Walker's decision chews through the arguments of opponents of gay marriage, refuting contentions gay marriages are unstable and that children raised by gay parents do less well than kids from heterosexual households. He also makes it obvious supporters of Proposition 8 were trying to inject their religious views into law. “The evidence presented at trial,” Walker wrote, “fatally undermines the premises underlying proponents' proffered rationales for Proposition 8.” New Jersey once had a supreme court willing to render significant decisions. Under chiefs like Joseph Weintraub, Richard Hughes, Robert Wilentz, James Zazzali and Deborah Poritz, the state's highest court was a national leader in individual rights. It is often in state courts that individual rights are most effectively protected. New Jersey's decisions on school funding and fair housing — also now endangered — went far beyond what the federal courts would do. Even Walker's decision, for all the hype it has generated, could set back the cause. Rutgers Law Professor Carlos Bell, an expert on gay marriage, explains it could lead to an adverse decision by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court: “That is why most of the other same-sex marriage lawsuits (including New Jersey's Lewis v. Harris) have been brought in state courts alleging violations of state constitutions. When a case is decided on state constitutional grounds, it cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. “It is likely the court will hear the Proposition 8 case. The upside for gay people of a favorable decision is tremendous: It would mean same-sex couples all over the country would have to be afforded the opportunity to marry. But the downside is also great: It would mean a Supreme Court decision, which would likely stay on the books for a long time, holding gay people are not entitled to marry under the federal constitution.” Maybe too much has been read into the state court action. Even Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, the state's leading proponent of gay rights, says “it's not a dooms-day scenario — we'll get our day in court.” Perhaps. But a lot is at stake, and one has to wonder — do the three judges up for reappointment really think Christie will keep them no matter what they do? This looks more like an opportunity to make history rather than curry favor. added by: toyotabedzrock

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Reader Scolds Washington Post: There Are No ‘Liberals’ on the Supreme Court

Posted on August 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Crazies on the left allow journalists to see themselves as under siege from both sides of the spectrum, and thus must be playing it down the middle. To wit: Saturday’s Washington Post carried a letter from a reader upset the newspaper had reported the Supreme Court has “four firm liberals.” Robert B. McNeil Jr., of Alexandria, insisted “there hasn’t been even a single ‘liberal’ on the court in years.” He recommended: The Post should recognize philosophical reality and refer to the “moderate” and “conservative” wings of the court, although “moderate” and “radical-conservative” would be more accurate. McNeil’s ridiculous contention that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens are not liberal, headlined online “There are no ‘liberals’ on the Supreme Court” and in the real newspaper with the blander “Mislabeling the high court,” appeared on the “Free for All” page – an extra full page of letters run each week in the Saturday newspaper. The full letter in the Saturday, August 14 Washington Post: The Aug. 6 front-page story about the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan referred to “a court with four solid conservatives and four firm liberals.” This usage continued a long and an inaccurate tradition that I wish The Post would change. There are not “four firm liberals” on the Supreme Court, and there hasn’t been even a single “liberal” on the court in years. The Post should recognize philosophical reality and refer to the “moderate” and “conservative” wings of the court, although “moderate” and “radical-conservative” would be more accurate. Robert B. McNeil Jr., Alexandria

See more here:
Reader Scolds Washington Post: There Are No ‘Liberals’ on the Supreme Court

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

CNN’s Blitzer Presses Crist on Party Preference, ‘You Just Can’t Caucus with Yourself’

Posted on August 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

During on interview on Saturday’s The Situation Room with independent Florida Senate candidate and Governor Charlie Crist, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer pressed the former Republican to announce which party he would choose to caucus with if he is elected to the Senate, and brought up his current associations with Democrats and flip-flops toward more liberal positions. As Crist repeatedly tried to evade acknowledging the importance of being aligned with one of the two major parties to have influence, and the likelihood that he would ultimately choose to ally with one of the parties, Blitzer was persistent in pressing for an answer, at one point quipping: “You just can’t caucus with yourself, if you will, if you want to have some influence.” Crist eventually seemed to hint that his decision would depend on which party holds the majority after November: “And you’ve just hit on the pivotal issue really: What is in the best interests of the people of Florida? We don’t know who’s going to be in the majority November 2 nd after the general election. And so I think it’s important to keep an open mind, to stay committed only to one thing, and that’s the people of my state.” After playing a clip of Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio accusing Crist of moving toward President Obama politically, Blitzer noted: “But are you increasingly embracing the Obama agenda? Because he’s saying you flip-flopped on a whole lot of issues where you were a Republican, but now you’re siding with the Democrats, including President Obama.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Saturday, August 14, The Situation Room on CNN: WOLF BLITZER: All right, let’s talk a little bit about why you’re here in Washington. Among other reasons, obviously, you want to be in the Situation Room, our Situation Room- GOVERNOR CHARLIE CRIST (I-FL), LAUGHING: I came here to see you. BLITZER: -but tonight you’re going to a fundraiser and some prominent Democrats are hosting this fundraiser for you, including someone very close to the former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. What does that mean? Are you now a Democrat for all practical purposes? CRIST: I think it means we have broad support, and I’m very pleased by that. I mean, from Republicans, Democrats, independents. I think everybody has the notion and the idea that they would like an independent voice in the United States Senate fighting for Floridians first. And that’s what this is really all about – being independent, putting people above the party, and making sure that they have a voice in the Senate that’s an honest broker, looks out for their interests first. And Democrats and Republicans and independents want it. BLITZER: Are you getting more support now from Republicans or Democrats? CRIST: I’d say it’s pretty evenly split. I mean, you know, a lot of friends from the Republican party have stayed with us, continued to help, and God bless them for that. New Democrats who have become very good friends and some Democrats have been friend for a long time are just stepping up in a much more significant way now. BLITZER: The fundraiser tonight’s going to be basically Democrats, though? CRIST: That’s correct, it is. BLITZER: There are two independent U.S. Senators, as you know – Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. But they both caucus with the Democrats and the Democrats are in the majority. They have chairmanship committees and committee rankings and all of that. If you’re elected to the United States Senate, will you caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans? CRIST: I’ve always said that I’ll caucus with the people of Florida. And what I mean by that is, issue by issue, whatever’s in the best interests of the people of my state, my fellow Floridians, I want to be able to be with those that are going to help Florida. BLITZER: But you got to make a decision because, if you’re not going to be caucusing with one party or the other party, you’re not going to have any committee ranking, you’re not going to have any influence in the United States Senate. You’re going to have to make a major decision. CRIST: Well, if I have the honor of winning, I’ll have a vote in the United States Senate. BLITZER: You’ll have one vote, but if you’re chairman of the committee, if you caucus with the Democrats, chairman of a subcommittee, you could have some influence, so you’re going to have to decide whether to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. You just can’t caucus with yourself, if you will, if you want to have some influence. CRIST: Well, I got to keep my eye on the ball, and the eye on the ball for me means looking at November 2 nd. I’m not going to be a chairman of anything if I don’t get elected to the Senate first. So I have to continue to work hard, campaign hard, continue to strive to earn the trust and confidence of my fellow Floridians. BLITZER: So when the Democrats at the fundraiser tonight ask you, Charlie Crist, we’re going to give you money, they’ll say. Are you promising us you’ll be with Harry Reid and the Democrats assuming he gets re-elected in the United States Senate, you won’t go with Mitch McConnell and the Republicans? CRIST: I’m not going to commit to either one because I’m only committed to the people of Florida. BLITZER: So you’ll commit after, if you’re elected. Is that what you’re saying? CRIST: Probably. BLITZER: Because you’ll have to caucus, you’ll have to make that decision down the road. CRIST: Well, I don’t know that Wayne Morris did. I think he literally took a seat in the middle of the aisle, right? BLITZER: He didn’t. You’re right. You’re right on that. He didn’t. He took a seat in the middle, but, you know, then the people of Florida could suffer if you don’t have the influence that you would like to have. CRIST: And you’ve just hit on the pivotal issue really: What is in the best interests of the people of Florida? We don’t know who’s going to be in the majority November 2 nd after the general election. And so I think it’s important to keep an open mind, to stay committed only to one thing, and that’s the people of my state. BLITZER: Your Republican challenger, Marco Rubio, was here. He was sitting in that seat in the Situation Room just a little while ago on July 20. He said this: MARCO RUBIO, FLORIDA REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I don’t believe he’s really an independent. I think there’s increasing evidence that he now is embracing the Obama agenda. BLITZER: You heard what he said. CRIST: I heard what he said. BLITZER: You’re smiling. CRIST: Well, why wouldn’t I smile? BLITZER: But are you increasingly embracing the Obama agenda? Because he’s saying you flip-flopped on a whole lot of issues where you were a Republican, but now you’re siding with the Democrats, including President Obama. CRIST: Well, that’s what you’d expect him to say. He’s my opponent after all, one of them. And we don’t know who the other one’s gong to be yet until the primary concludes on August 24. So I look forward to that. I really do. And there will be distinctions between us on a lot of issues. But that’s the kind of thing you hear from a lot of the, you know, party candidates, if you will. They like to take shots at people. I’m not here to really do that today. I’m here to offer myself to the people of Florida as an independent voice who wants to rise above that kind of back-and-forth stuff that’s driving them crazy all over the country.

View original post here:
CNN’s Blitzer Presses Crist on Party Preference, ‘You Just Can’t Caucus with Yourself’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NBC’s O’Donnell Casts GOP Primary Winner As a Sexist

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Democratic Senator Michael Bennet got his own live spot on Wednesday’s Today show to make his pitch to Colorado voters, but his Republican opponent only got a brief soundbite, that came after a clip of him that put him in a negative, even sexist light. While Today co-anchor Ann Curry chatted live with Bennet in the first half hour, NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell only gave Republican candidate Ken Buck a few seconds in her report on yesterday’s primary races: KELLY O’DONNELL: Winning on the Republican side – career prosecutor Ken Buck who had said this on the trail. KEN BUCK: Why should you vote for me? Because I do not wear high heels. O’DONNELL: Former Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton was the establishment choice, but the Tea Party picked Buck. Do you think of yourself as a Tea Party candidate? BUCK: I think of myself as a grassroots candidate and the Tea Parties are certainly part of that grassroots effort. O’Donnell never gave Buck the chance to explain to the country that his comment/joke came in response to Norton criticism of his candidacy, as he told CBS News’ Bob Orr : “My opponent has said a number of times on the campaign trail that people should vote for her because she wears high heels, because she wears a skirt, because she’s a woman…She ran a commercial that said Ken Buck should be man enough to do X, Y, and Z…I made a statement, it was a lighthearted statement that I’m man enough, I don’t wear high heels and I have cowboy boots on.” By not airing Buck’s clarification and pointing out that the “Tea Party picked Buck,” O’Donnell left Today viewers with the impression that Tea Party voters had just favored the sexist candidate in the race. In contrast Buck’s Democratic opponent in the fall got a full interview segment to make his case to Colorado voters. The following is Curry’s interview with Bennet as it was aired on the August 11 Today show: ANN CURRY: Washington has been keeping an especially close eye on the primary results in Colorado. As we mentioned Democratic Senator Michael Bennet, who had the backing of President Obama, won his party’s primary while setting up a November showdown with Tea Party backed Republican Ken Buck. We’ve got Senator Bennet this morning, joining us this morning. Hello Senator, good morning, and congratulations. [On screen headline: “Rocky Mountain Race, Obama Picks Wins Colorado Senate Primary”] SEN. MICHAEL BENNET: Good morning. Thank you. Thanks for having me today. CURRY: You know, your race fueled this idea that President Obama might not be such an asset on the campaign trail as it, as he was two years ago. Now, this morning after your victory, and it looks like you won pretty handily in looking at the numbers with 100 percent of precincts reporting, you, you won more than a 54 percent of the vote. What do you want to say about President Obama as his, in terms of his being an asset on the campaign trail? BENNET: You know, I’m very pleased to have had his support but I don’t think it made the difference in the primary and won’t make the difference in the general. The content of what I hear in my town hall meetings has never been further away from what we’re hearing on our television sets than it is today. People are focused on how we get out of the most savage economy since the Great Depression. And I think, you know, the politics in Washington and the, and the political conversation we’re hearing on TV these days is not particularly responsive to that and, and we have spoken to that and I think that’s why we were successful in the primary and will be in the general. CURRY: Well so if you’re saying that it wasn’t necessarily what put you over the top, was it, would you have considered it a hindrance? I mean how would you describe the usefulness of President Obama being with you on the campaign trail, in some part, to your campaign? BENNET: I certainly wouldn’t describe it as a hindrance and I also don’t think it made the difference. I don’t think it was material to most primary voters. CURRY: Right. In your victory speech, to the point you were making earlier, you said that, quote, “Washington has a lot to learn from Colorado.” Exactly what do you mean by that, Senator? BENNET: Look we, even before we were in the worst recession since the Great Depression, if you look at the last period of economic growth, it’s the first time in our history that our economy grew and middle class income fell. That’s never happened before. So families in Colorado are earning $1,000 less at the end of the decade than they were at the beginning. The cost of health insurance has gone up by 97 percent. Their cost of higher education has gone up by over 50 percent. People are struggling to figure out how to make sure that we’re not the first generation of Americans to leave less opportunity, not more, to our kids and our grandkids. That’s what people in Colorado are focused on. CURRY: Well alright. I think we’re gonna have to leave that as the last word. There will be a lot of questions, more to come as I’m sure you face this general election. Senator Michael Bennet, thank you so much this morning. BENNET: Thank you. Thanks, thanks for not asking me any wrestling questions. CURRY: Okay. You bet. You can count on that. BENNET: Alright.

More:
NBC’s O’Donnell Casts GOP Primary Winner As a Sexist

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ‘Eyes Lit Up’ During ‘Expendables,’ Sylvester Stallone Says

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

‘It’s one thing to run a state, but it’s another thing to get back to what you’re really known for,’ Sly tells MTV News. By Eric Ditzian, with reporting by Josh Horowitz Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone Photo: Eric Charbonneau/ Getty Images Toward the fiery conclusion of last year’s “Terminator Salvation,” as Christian Bale blasts his way through Skynet’s home base, slaying scores of red-eyed cyborgs, he meets an unlikely enemy: a young Arnold Schwarzenegger as the familiar T-800. Whatever gripes fans might have with McG’s take on the venerable sci-fi franchise — and there are many — the sight of Arnie digitally reconstructed to resemble his ’80s-era self was unambiguously cool. But the Governator didn’t actually step on set for the scene. Instead, McG employed some cutting-edge, “Benjamin Button”-style visual effects — as well as the blessing of the actor-turned-politician — to re-create the Schwarzenegger of old. Not until this weekend, when Sylvester Stallone’s “The Expendables” hits theaters, will the most powerful man in California make his official return to Hollywood. And what a reintroduction it is, as we see Arnold stride into a church in truly epic fashion. In fact, after working with him on the new flick, Sly is hoping his ’80s action pal sticks around Tinseltown after he leaves the governor’s mansion early next year. “If this works, I would love to get him in the next one,” Stallone told MTV News of a possible sequel. “I really think so. He’s been out of the limelight a long time, and I think this is the kind of film that would be a nice intro.” That might not be wishful thinking. Stallone witnessed firsthand how Schwarzenegger still gets pumped up about making movies — more than seven years since his last starring role. “I saw his eyes light up. It’s one thing to run a state, but it’s another thing to get back to what you’re really known for,” Stallone said. “Certain actors you’re never going to see come down the pike again, and he’s one of them.” Check out everything we’ve got on “The Expendables.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com .

See original here:
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ‘Eyes Lit Up’ During ‘Expendables,’ Sylvester Stallone Says

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hollywood, Music

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Of All People: Schultz Slams Chris Christie With Fat Jokes

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

What’s next: Bill Clinton cutting an ad vexing David Vitter on the issue of fidelity? Of all people, Ed Schultz spent an entire segment this evening going after Chris Christie . . . about his girth. I counted no fewer than seven separate barbs that Schultz directed Christie’s way over his weight.  He began with a photo of the NJ Governor with the graphic “Battle of the Bulge.”   It got heavier from there. “This morning, Beckster [Glenn Beck] had some sizeable praise for the job-cutting governor.” “On his radio program, Laura Ingraham backed him up with this hefty endorsement .” ” Christie’s couch-potato lifestyle .” “Chris Christie is a guy who makes the middle-class, the poor and schoolkids pay for his fat-cat buddies to keep their living high on the hog lifestyle.” “To say he’d be a good president? That would be some pretty hefty Psycho Talk.” Schultz seems to have a penchant for throwing stones from deep within a glass house.  As I reported here yesterday, after Ed mocked Karl Rove for a brief stumble in giving the call-in number while guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh, Schultz proceeded to butcher the pronunciation of a guest’s name.  Tonight, the significantly un-svelte Schultz taunts Chris Christie over his weight.  Why would Ed want to highlight his own hypocrisy?  When Christie’s opponent in the NJ gubernatorial race, then-incumbent governor Jon Corzine, ran an ad taunting Christie over his avoirdupois, it famously blew up in his face .  Is Ed sure he wants to go down the same losing road?

Read more here:
Of All People: Schultz Slams Chris Christie With Fat Jokes

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Special NB Bonus: Notable Quotables that Couldn’t Fit Into the Regular August 9 Edition

Posted on August 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Too much bias, not enough space. Collecting quotes for the latest edition of MRC’s bi-weekly Notable Quotables , I found more outrageous liberal eruptions than could fit into the normal newsletter. So, just for NewsBusters readers, here are a dozen worthy quotes that just couldn’t squeeze into the regular issue: ■ Confusing Tired Liberal Cliches with Economic Strategy “Let’s let the entire slew of Bush tax cuts retire. That would take us back to Clinton-era rates, when the American economy had its strongest growth years in three decades and the budget was balanced for the first time in four decades. If the economy still needs a bit more stimulus, fine, extend unemployment benefits for another year. Give some aid to the states. Those are temporary measures, and the money will get spent. Unemployment benefits work because they go to people who are living from paycheck to paycheck. They spend the money….This massive change actually requires that Congress do nothing. Let the tax cuts expire. A do-nothing Congress will have done something truly important for the country’s future.” — Newsweek international editor Fareed Zakaria hosting CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS , August 1. ■ Fox News: “Whipping Up White Hysteria” “Also for weeks Fox News and its friends have been whipping up white hysteria over allegations that members of the New Black Panther Party, two of them, intimidated voters in Philadelphia two years ago. The Justice Department found insufficient evidence to investigate the case and now all seven Senate Republicans on the U.S. Judiciary committee of the Senate want the Justice Department investigated itself. Is this yet another example of a rightist strategy to stir up racial resentment among whites by portraying whites as victims of black rule in this country?” — MSNBC host Chris Matthews on Hardball , July 27. ■ Ann Hits Joe from the Left: “How Long Can We Pay for This War?” “The House on Tuesday night agreed to fund a surge in Afghanistan — $33 billion for 30,000 additional troops. But, boy, was there some reluctance. We’ve got Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern saying, quote, ‘We’re told we can’t extend unemployment or pay to keep cops on the beat or teachers in the classroom but we’re asked to borrow another $33 billion for nation building in Afghanistan. I think we need to do more nation building here at home.’ How long can we keep paying for this war?” — NBC’s Ann Curry to Vice President Joe Biden on Today , July 29. ■ Don’t Confuse Us MSNBCers With “Journalists With an Agenda” “I am offended the right is using this as a sledgehammer against those of us who don’t practice activist journalism. Journolist was pretty offensive. Those of us who are mainstream journalists got mixed in with journalists with an agenda. Those folks who thought they were improving journalism are destroying the credibility of journalism. This has kept me up nights. I try to be fair. It’s very depressing.” — NBC White House correspondent and MSNBC daytime host Chuck Todd, as quoted by The Politico ’s Roger Simon in a July 28 article . ■ Andrew Breitbart: Just a “Smash-Mouth” “Smear Artist” “Andrew Breitbart was not an unknown. He is a notorious smear artist and practitioner of what’s sometimes called smash-mouth politics. And they [the Obama White House] should’ve realized that any kind of allegation that he made needed to be checked out very carefully before anybody acted upon it.” — Newsweek ’s Jonathan Alter on NPR’s All Things Considered , July 21. ■ Democratic Corruption or Ethics Committee Racism? “Are the ethics police on the Hill color-blind? If so, just how do you explain what’s happening to the Congressional Black Caucus? The latest on the [Charles] Rangel and Maxine Waters investigations….” “Coming up here, are black lawmakers being singled out by the ethics watchdogs on Capitol Hill? New charges of racial bias….” — NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell teasing an upcoming segment on her 1pm ET MSNBC A ndrea Mitchell Reports , August 2. “Some are openly questioning why two high profile African-American House members are coming under such tough scrutiny…..[to Al Sharpton] Do you think that black members are being targeted unfairly by the ethics committee?” — CNN anchor Don Lemon on the 6pm ET Newsroom , August 1. ■ “One Brave Soldier” vs. Obama’s Nazi-esque “War Machine” Host Larry King: “What’s your reaction to the WikiLeaks, the Afghan War documents?” Left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore: “I think that we have this war machine that was built on a lie a number of years ago — incredible lies — that have cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars. And one brave soldier by the name of Bradley Manning decided that the truth had to be told. And he said that he was willing to do it regardless of the consequences — and he essentially followed the Nuremberg principles which is when you see something going on like this, when you see war crimes being committed, when you see lies being told in order to bring a country to war, you have to speak out against it. You can’t just line up and be a good German and do what you’re told to do.” — Exchange on CNN’s Larry King Live , July 27. ■ CNN Host Slams Fox as “Not a News Organization” Host Rick Sanchez: “Well, I understand the Associated Press. I even understand Bloomberg, but don’t have you to be a news organization to get that seat?” White House correspondent Ed Henry: “Oh! Are you saying Fox is not a news organization?” Sanchez: “Yeah. I’m just wondering.” — CNN’s Rick’s List , August 2, discussing the White House Correspondents Association decision to move the Fox News correspondent to the front row of the White House briefing room. ■ Crazy Beck vs. Limbaugh the Faker   “I sort of dig on Glenn Beck. He reminds me of certain people you encounter in big cities. You know, the ones wearing robes, sandals, and signs proclaiming that the world is going to end because American men are eating too much red meat and American women are wearing their pants too tight. He’s crazy but — like those urban nutcakes — he actually seems to believe what he’s saying I can get behind that. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, gives me the creeps. He sounds saner than Beck (well, marginally), but there’s absolutely no conviction in that sonorous, slightly flabby voice….He says what his listeners want to hear, but when it comes to actual convictions, I’m always reminded of what Gertrude Stein said about her hometown of Oakland: ‘There isn’t any there there.’” — Novelist Stephen King in his “The Pop of King” column in the August 6 issue of Entertainment Weekly . ■ Expecting “Tough” and “Real” Questions from The View “I would be willing to bet you that he [President Obama] might get tougher questions asked of him on The View than he would at a White House press conference….More real. More where we live….They ask pertinent questions. But I think the questions that will be asked of him on The View might resonate more with the way people live in this country.” — MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle on Morning Joe , July 27. vs . Co-host Joy Behar: “Do you know that Lindsey Lohan is in jail?…Does Mel Gibson need anger management?…Should Snooki run as mayor of Wasilla?” Co-host Sherri Shepherd: “Mr. President, do you Tweet?”… Co-host Whoopi Goldberg: “What’s the first couple of songs on your iPod?”… Co-host Barbara Walters: “Were you invited to Chelsea Clinton’s wedding?” — Actual questions posed to Obama on The View , July 29. To see which quotes made the August 9 edition, click here .

Visit link:
Special NB Bonus: Notable Quotables that Couldn’t Fit Into the Regular August 9 Edition

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,